What good reason is there to believe the Christian God exists? [The Debate Thread]

There are two threads in the Senate that contain fallacious material regarding the belief in the supernatural. The OP has objected to these fallacies being pointed out in the threads he created, so I've created this one.

This thread will be the place to debate the existence of the Christian god (lowercase 'g' intentional since I'm referring to the title not the name).

If you have a good reason to believe in such a god, please post it here. I will provide the rational response to the supernatural.

Should a good reason be shown, I will acknowledge it. Should the reason(s) alleged to be good end up being fallacious instead, I will speak to it. I have no claim to make -I'm not claiming that the Christian god is non-existent, rather, I'm saying there's no good reason that I've seen yet to believe this god (a.k.a. Yahweh, El, Elohim, Jehovah) is anything more than myth and fantasy.

If the term "ignorant" is used, it refers most likely to the argument from ignorance, which basically states a speculative claim must be true since actual causality cannot be established.

If the term "cult" is used, it refers to the anthropological definition, which generally refers to the followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices.

If the term "fallacious" is used, it refers to the incorrect application of logic and reasoning.

If the term "superstition" is used, it refers to the belief in the supernatural.

Terms like "moron," "idiot," "retard," etc. will not be used and posts that contain these will be deleted.

So... what is the first "good reason" to believe in the Christian god.

In Christianity, God has revealed Himself. No other religion in the world can say that.

And yet they do. Hmm... How do we know which religion is the right one? How do you know that Christianity is the right one? On what data do you base the claim above and how many non-Christian religious scriptures will I need to produce to get you to retract it? I want to establish this number prior to quoting them to avoid any goal-post moving in the future.

(Before we get started, I would just like to say that I know I am probably outnumbered, so if someone wants to debate, it may be some time before I can respond, given that there will probably be a good many respond. Also, if you see that someone on your side has already posted your argument point, please do not re-post. It'll drain me time =( )

I was saying that God has shown Himself to us through the life of Christ. Actually revealing His new covenant (the NT in the Bible). No other religious deity can make the claim that it actually came down here to live among us for the purpose of reconciling ourselves back to it.

Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?-Matthew 7:3-5Living Water Revival

See the thing about it is,out of all the religion in this world Christianity is really the only one in which the diety revealed himself to man and did not hide in the least. God revealed Himself to us through His son Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us that. And most other religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism don't even have any kind of documented scripture or writings.

I was saying that God has shown Himself to us through the life of Christ. Actually revealing His new covenant (the NT in the Bible). No other religious deity can make the claim that it actually came down here to live among us for the purpose of reconciling ourselves back to it.

Even if we assume that Jesus actually existed (another thread, to be sure), what evidence is there that the anonymous authors of Christian mythology were telling the truth? Indeed, there are enough contradictions in the gospels alone to question their claims. Further, none of the gospels or other NT books were written by authors during the time that Jesus was alleged to have lived.

What we see in Christian mythology is what we see in the religious mythology of other religions ranging from Indian Vedas to the Popul Vu and many oral religious traditions: hero stories and embellishment designed to give the followers of religious cults purpose, history, and order through mythical connection.

Finally, saying that the Christian god exists because it is written in biblical mythology is a circular argument. Since the Bible is alleged by true believers to be the inerrant word of God, this amounts to begging the question and saying God exists because God says he exists.

Biblical mythology is not a good reason to believe in the Christian god.

I guess what I should have said there was that the Hindu people dont have a form of instruction in use that is in a literary form (sorry for the mistake), rather they have a collection of hymns. Sorry about that.

(A)Even if we assume that Jesus actually existed (another thread, to be sure), (B)Indeed, there are enough contradictions in the gospels alone to question their claims. (C)Further, none of the gospels or other NT books were written by authors during the time that Jesus was alleged to have lived.

(D)What we see in Christian mythology is what we see in the religious mythology of other religions ranging from Indian Vedas to the Popul Vu and many oral religious traditions: hero stories and embellishment designed to give the followers of religious cults purpose, history, and order through mythical connection.

(E)Finally, saying that the Christian god exists because it is written in biblical mythology is a circular argument. Since the Bible is alleged by true believers to be the inerrant word of God, this amounts to begging the question and saying God exists because God says he exists.

Biblical mythology is not a good reason to believe in the Christian god.

(B) List me a few of the contradictions in the Gospels, and I will explain them of the best of my ability.

(C) This is true, none of the Gospels were actually written during the time of Christ, but if a jew from Nazi Germany wrote a book this year about it, that doesn't mean it is false.
(D) The NT writers and Jesus himself were aware of the other religions, and even spoke of them in the scriptures: 1 John 2:18 "Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. " And 2 John 1:7 "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist."

(E) I agree to an extent, saying he is real "because I say so" is not a good argument. However, it does need to be taken into consideration that the Bible (may) be God's word, because that is what we are ultimately debating.

Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?-Matthew 7:3-5Living Water Revival

Honestly, different people have different things that let them realize there is some form of afterlife. I have had several experiences with the supernatural. A few of which happened while I was an Atheist. My first experience could easily be explained away as trickery of perception. My second experience however defied explanation.

Those of you that live in Colorado Springs may be familiar with the Pikes Peak Community Center. I was performing a show there(with my band). I can't remember why they needed it, but they needed a ladder from the basement. I said, "Sure, why not? I'll go get it."

One of the people working there said to hold up and he would come with. and I responded with a little bravado that I could get it myself. It's only a ladder. He replied with, "I wouldn't go down there alone if I were you."

My immediate thought was, What is there a troll down there or what. But I proceeded down there myself. I got about 3/4 of the way down the hall and a sudden rush of fear hit me. I thought I heard a scream from a woman, and then things kinda got real dark. Now, keep in mind I didn't believe in ghosts, or anything of that nature. But what I saw and felt convinced me that something exists. It was a woman that screamed in my face and scratched my back. I felt it like it was a deep scratch across my back. When I let out a yell, the darkness went back to the lit hallway, and I was alone.

Now ordinarily I would have just chalked it up to losing my mind, or even gas buildup in the basement of the old building, but when my roadie came running down to check on me, he asked me what happened to my shirt. It had eight rips running from the center out, on my back.

I came up from the basement and the crew member looked at me and said, "You met her didn't ya."

Now I had not known this but apparently there was a nun that was killed(far more happened to her, but I won't go into details) down there back when the PPCC was the court house. That hallway used to connect the jailhouse to the courthouse.

Does that mean that the Christian God exists? No, but it was strong enough evidence for me that SOMETHING exists beyond death.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

I guess what I should have said there was that the Hindu people dont have a form of instruction in use that is in a literary form (sorry for the mistake), rather they have a collection of hymns. Sorry about that.

Much of Christian mythology is actually "a collection of hymns" and poems. Much of the texts listed above are both prescriptive and descriptive -in many cases more so than Christian mythology.

Bible-based resources are dismissed. Circular arguments. I see a lot of evidence for place-names, etc. in the link above which are described in NT texts, but I didn't see the evidence for Jesus the alleged christ. It was a bit wordy, so perhaps you could quote the most convincing of the "evidences" listed there.

Quote:

(B) List me a few of the contradictions in the Gospels, and I will explain them of the best of my ability.

Exodus 10:15 "thou shalt not steal" vs. Exodus 3:22 "and ye shall spoil the Egyptians." Its okay to steal as long as it isn't from believers?

Deuteronomy 6:3 "The lord our god is one lord." vs. Genesis 1:26 "and god said, let us make man in our image." Is there one or more than one. Archaeological evidence points to a pantheon of gods as the Canaanite culture evolved into a Hebrew culture -the wife of Yahweh was Asherah according to archaeological evidence.

Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of god." vs. Job 1:1 "There was a man... whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright." -Was Job a perfect sinner?

Matthew 1:16 "and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." vs. Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli." Was Jesus the alleged christ's paternal grandfather Jacob or Heli?

I'm sure you'll have some creative hermeneutics that attempt to answer these contradictions, but there are dozens more of these and one wonders why there isn't a clear, consistent message in a text that is claimed to be the work of an omniscient, omnipotent deity.

Quote:

(C) This is true, none of the Gospels were actually written during the time of Christ, but if a jew from Nazi Germany wrote a book this year about it, that doesn't mean it is false.

This is a weak analogy. Indeed, if no Jew wrote about the Holocaust that lived during the time (and if no other person wrote of the Holocaust), then we would be right to question whether it occurred and we would be right to excavate the sites claimed so many years later by people who didn't witness it to verify the claim. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. It isn't just the case that Christians and Jews didn't write about Jesus during the time he was alive -it is the case that no one apparently wrote about Jesus during the time of his life. Indeed, the earliest writings are at least a full generation later.

There is no good reason to believe that Jesus, as depicted in biblical mythology, was a real person.

Quote:

(D) The NT writers and Jesus himself were aware of the other religions, and even spoke of them in the scriptures: 1 John 2:18 "Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. " And 2 John 1:7 "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist."

This isn't meaningful information.

Quote:

(E) I agree to an extent, saying he is real "because I say so" is not a good argument. However, it does need to be taken into consideration that the Bible (may) be God's word, because that is what we are ultimately debating.

No. It doesn't. There is no good reason to accept that biblical mythology is the word of a god. Particularly when it is so clearly flawed, full of bad advice, and indicative of an evil and degenerate deity (which, not coincidentally, appears to have all the characteristics of evil human degenerates who wipe out entire cultures and ethnic groups.

There is no more good reason to believe that the Christian bible is divinely inspired or written than there is to believe the same about the Popul Vuh or any of the Vedic or Buddhist scriptures I cited above.

Since I'm not Christian, I can't answer for them. However the problem you face is that some people are given evidence that proves the existence of the supernatural. My experience is only one of my experiences with supernatural entities. The majority of which happened because, as a skeptic, I refused to believe there was a danger or refused to believe in those stories. Some stories I heard only after my experiences. Nothing we can say or do would convince you that our experiences are real. You have to experience them for yourself.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

There is no good reason to accept that biblical mythology is the word of a god. Particularly when it is so clearly flawed, full of bad advice, and indicative of an evil and degenerate deity (which, not coincidentally, appears to have all the characteristics of evil human degenerates who wipe out entire cultures and ethnic groups.

When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property. (Exod. 21:20-21)

technically good advice... for the time. As slavery was a common thing back then not beating them to death was actually a bit of good advice. Now if you say it's good advice to OWN slaves... not in today's society. But then we have matured a great deal.

Besides, You have to look in the New Testament for Christian rules, as many of them overwrite the existing rules. Kinda like how a new law can override the older law.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

You need to realize that men wrote the bible, and things could have been distorted... Though as Tommycat said, the New Testament overwrites stuff from the old Testament.

Also SkinWalker:

Explain the Biblical Exodus in a way that doesn't sound like a series of events that would fundamentally be statistically impossible to occur.

As far as there being no records in Egypt of it, that is actually rather easy to explain because they tended to destroy all records of something that was bad and then they pretended that it never happened. So don't try the there is no records argument, because that isn't going to fly.

So are you implying that slavery is "relatively moral?" Or that beating someone so that they die a slow death is acceptable given the situation? I'm a little confused. I can't say I'd agree that we can simply say, "well, it was a different time so some really bad things were okay then."

Quote:

As slavery was a common thing back then not beating them to death was actually a bit of good advice.

The advice is not to not beat them to death, but to not beat them immediately to death.

Quote:

Now if you say it's good advice to OWN slaves... not in today's society. But then we have matured a great deal.

Agreed. Which is why I say that considering such a flawed and poorly written set of texts as the "inerrant word" of a god both preposterous and dangerous.

Quote:

Besides, You have to look in the New Testament for Christian rules, as many of them overwrite the existing rules. Kinda like how a new law can override the older law.

Which highlights some flaws, because there is the no-small-matter of what is written in the NT. Jesus, the alleged christ, is alleged to have stated: "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

You need to realize that men wrote the bible, and things could have been distorted...

I can agree with that. It has clearly become distorted, both intentionally and unintentionally. I also note that we're in agreement that biblical mythology is not the inerrant word of a god.

Quote:

Though as Tommycat said, the New Testament overwrites stuff from the old Testament.

Explain the Biblical Exodus in a way that doesn't sound like a series of events that would fundamentally be statistically impossible to occur.

You have noted that I'm an archaeologist haven't you? You should be careful what you wish for.

Exodus: The Biblical Claim
The claim is, in a nutshell, this: 600,000 “children of Israel” escaped from Egypt where they were the slaves of the pharaoh. These Israelites were chased by the pharaoh’s armies who were unable to catch them. The entire band of 600,000 former slaves “wandered” the desert, camping at various locations, encountering various peoples and kingdoms, and finally settled to form a new nation. All of this occurred, ostensibly, in the 15th century BCE. We “know” this because I Kings 6:1 tells us Solomon’s temple was constructed in the 4th year of his rule, 480 years after Exodus. 966 BCE + 480 years = 1446 BCE.

Exodus 1:11 mentions two cities of Egypt: Pi-Ramesses and Pithom as forced labor projects of the Israelites. The first pharaoh named Ramesses is the son of Seti I and reigns in the year 1320 BCE, so even the 480 years of I Kings doesn’t work. Pi-Ramesses was built in the Nile Delta during the reign of Ramesses II (1279-1213 BCE) and Egyptian records indicate Semites were used in its construction.

Who Were the Hyksos?
Often in discussions of Exodus and Israelites in Egypt, the Hyksos come into the picture. This is because the Hyksos were Semite in origin, specifically Canaanite. The same progenitor peoples of the modern day Israelites and Palestinians. The Nile Delta, a.k.a. Lower Egypt, was frequently inhabited by migrating peoples and nomads who sought to find refuge in the relatively stable delta ecology, particularly in times of drought and famine. From about 1668 - 1565 BCE, Canaanites occupied the Delta and ruled Lower Egypt. Manethos referred to the them as heku-shoswet, and, Hellenized, it became “Hyksos,” which means rulers of a foreign land. This later became a general Egyptian term for Asiatic foreigners.

The Hyksos had a distinctive Canaanite pottery and architecture, which is present in the archaeological record and, according to the Turin Papyrus, they ruled Lower Egypt for 108 years. One of the most prominent of their rulers was Apophis and their capital was Avaris, known today as the archaeological site Tell Daba’a.

Pharaoh Ahmose I (18th Dynasty) sacked Avaris and chased the Hyksos to southern Canaan to their fortress, Sharuhen near modern day Gaza. Ahmose laid siege to the fortress for three years before he stormed it.

From that point, the Egyptians maintained tight control of the border between Eastern Egypt and Canaan.

For those that are quick to pick up on the similarities of the Hyksos and the Exodus tale, it’s important to note that the dates also don’t line up with the I Kings account and the difference is more than 130 years. Moreover, there is no “Ramesses” for whom a city can be named at this point. Though, the correlation is one to not be quickly dismissed.

What if the Exodus Story Were Concocted?
What if, indeed? Why concoct such a tale and how would we know it was either concocted or true. Believers in Christianity and Judaism assign varying degrees of trust in Old Testament mythology: some willing to accept it as myth at one extreme; others taking great umbrage to the use of the term “myth” at the other.

But if we hypothesize for a moment that the Exodus narrative (I’ll stick to this term) is one that was invented by the authors of Genesis, then what might we expect to find to corroborate the hypothesis?

First, we might expect that narrative be limited to only what the authors knew. Assuming that they didn’t have Iron Age archaeologists excavating sites, we can assume that their knowledge was limited to the geography and politics of their time.

Second, if the narrative is an invented one, we would fail to see corroboration in Egyptian texts of it.

Third, if, indeed, this is a narrative invented by a much later author or set of authors, we would not expect to find archaeological evidence that supports it.

Guess What?
The sites mentioned in Exodus are real.

The problem is this: the sites mentioned were sparsely populated by a few pastoralists or otherwise completely unoccupied during the alleged period that Exodus occurred in the Late Bronze Age (13th century BCE). A few were well-known and occupied much earlier and certainly much later than the Late Bronze Age, but during the Exodus period, nada. They were unoccupied at precisely the time they were reported to be by Exodus.

Not only that, but Egyptian texts don’t mention “Israelites” at all. If 600,000 slaves escaped the pharaoh, they were so stealthy they slipped past all the border stations that were put into place following the Hyksos expulsion, snuck past each of the fortifications used to supply soldiers along the “Ways of Horus,” the 250 km route between Egypt and Gaza. And they successfully eluded Egyptian soldiers that were already present in Canaan, which was controlled by Egypt from the 13th through the 7th centuries BCE. The only mention of “Israel” is on the Merneptah Stele where Merneptah (1213-1203 BCE) boasts that “Isrir lies in waste its seed no more.” The lack of a country determinative in the hieroglyphs clearly indicates Merneptah was referring to a people not a country and the depiction of the Israelites on the stele was consistent with Canaanite hair style.

Addressing the third point above, regarding archaeological evidence, it must be recognized that there has been extensive work done in archaeology in the Levant, particularly in the Sinai desert where the “children of Israel” (all 600,000 of them) were said to “wander.” Biblical stories are very much responsible for this archaeology as “biblical archaeologists,” searched -and still search- for evidence that supports their beliefs.

600,000 Wandering Jews?
Let’s put the number into perspective. Fresno and Mission Viejo, both in California have populations of 500,000. Bakersfield is only 250,000. Vancouver, Canada has a population of 600,000.

Not a single archaeological expedition, and there have been a great many, has discovered evidence of any substantial group of people subsisting off of the land in the Sinai desert or in or near any of the sites mentioned in Exodus. According to the biblical narrative, the equivalent of the population of Vancouver was moving around and camping in the desert for 40 years. Not only were they stealthy (not encountering the Egyptian armies who recorded even encounters with a few nomadic pastoralists tending their flocks); but they were frugal! Not a single pot sherd has been found!

Not a single campsite or site of occupation has been found with the exception of the well-documented coastal forts and stations of the Egyptian army for the period of Ramesses II or for any of his immediate predecessors or successors. There have been repeated archaeological excavations at the site of St. Catherine’s Monastary in the Sinai, where Moses is supposed to have spoken to a burning bush, but the results have always been negative evidence. Not a single sherd or indication that the site was occupied in the Late Bronze Age. Modern archaeological techniques can trace the remains of hunter-gather and pastoral nomads all over the world, but cannot find a population the size of that of Vancouver in a barren desert! Indeed, the activity of a small population of pastoralists is present in the 3rd millennium (2000-3000) BCE, as well as in the Hellenistic and Byzantine periods. But the evidence is NON-EXISTENT for the Late Bronze Age.

Tell Arad
East of Beersheba there is the remains of a great Early Bronze Age city that spans about 25 acres. A “tell” is a mound of past human habitation that has since eroded from mud bricks to a pile of dirt, often built upon again and again over many generations. This tell also became an Iron Age fort, but there are no remains for the Late Bronze Age when Exodus is alleged to have happened.

This directly contradicts the biblical narrative since the king of Arad “who dwelt in the Negeb” attacked the Israelites who appealed for divine intervention to destroy the Canaanite cities (Num. 21:1-3). There’s no evidence of Arad anywhere in the Beersheba valley (Negeb).

Tell Heshban
The wandering Jews supposedly did battle here with the Ammorite king, Sihon, who tried to block there passage (Num. 21:21-25). Excavations here reveal NO Bronze Age city. Not even a village.

Eddom and Ammon were alleged to be full-fledge states ruled by kings on the Transjordan plateau, yet the evidence shows that the plateau was sparsely inhabited by pastoralist populations in the Bronze Age. Not a single sedentary population is evident in the archaeological record.

Conclusion
Exodus was probably a story written by authors in the 7th century, or possibly as late as the 6th century, BCE. The place names mentioned above existed by the 7th century but not in the Bronze Age. Iron Age authors would have known of the many public works created by the Saite Dynasty in Egypt’s 26th Dynasty, who employed the largest numbers of foreign settlers. A large community of immigrants from Judah was present from the 7th through the 6th centuries. Pithom, mentioned in Exodus 1:11, was built in the 7th century. Migdol, mentioned in Exodus 14:2, was built in the 7th century.

Exodus apparently did not happen in the period or in the manner in which it is portrayed in biblical mythology.

References:

Beitak, M. (1996). Avaris the capital of the Hyksos: recent excavations of Tell el-Daba. London

Finkelstein, I. & Silberman, N.A. (2001). The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and The Origin of its Sacred Texts. New York

Oren, E.D. (1987). The “Ways of Horus” in North Sinai. In Rainey, A.F. (editor), Egypt, Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period. Tel-Aviv

Redford, D.B. (1973). Studies in Relations between Palestine and Egypt during the First Millennium B. C.: II. The Twenty-Second Dynasty. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 93(1), pp. 3-17.

Quote:

As far as there being no records in Egypt of it, that is actually rather easy to explain because they tended to destroy all records of something that was bad and then they pretended that it never happened. So don't try the there is no records argument, because that isn't going to fly.

As is apparently typical of your critical thought skills, you only see that data which are supportive to conclusions you already have. While there is some practice of Egyptian rulers removing written texts and accounts of some things they're not proud of (or writing their participation in a more favorable light), there are some fallacious problems with your argument. First, it assumes that Hebrews and the Canaanite culture they originate from are unwilling to the same. They did. Second, there are examples of this practice in nearly every single culture since writing was invented through today and no single culture appears to significantly stand out as doing it more than any other that I'm aware. Third, very little of the evidence against the biblical myth of Exodus relies on written records.

Uh, what's the point of thread, anyway? Anyone with a brain can tell that no one can provide an answer that will satisfy the OP, making this thread and several other similarly-themed ones seem like little more than thinly-disguised trolling expeditions.

Oh, wait: I think that I just answered my own question.

"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.

Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."

The point is that in other threads, debates and issues that are discussed and posited here and elsewhere, the attempted rationale for taking one side or another of an given argument is related to the belief in a personal god. Most often, in Western discourse, it's the belief in a Christian god.

My challenge is to posit what good reasons there are to believe in such a god. With these reasons not forthcoming, it would stand, therefore, that there are no good reasons for believing in a god. This conclusion then becomes a premise leading to the next conclusion which is belief in one or more gods is irrational.

Define the boundaries of what constitutes a "good" reason. Since it is your term (you use it multiple times, but set no parameters as to what constitutes a "good" reason) the burden is upon you to define what you mean. Qliveur is quite right, especially given the following:

Quote:

If you have a good reason to believe in such a god, please post it here. I will provide the rational response to the supernatural.

While I might be able to read between the lines (I'll presume you wish empirical evidence) of your statements, it would be most helpful to your victims, er I mean respondents, to know exactly what you want. I've gotta admit, that while people like you and achilles make claims toward agnosticism, your incessant and often condescending reduction of other people's beliefs to superstitions indicate you are not only atheists, but most likely even antitheistic. That's all nice and fine, but the disingenuity rings hollow after a time.

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

Since it is your term (you use it multiple times, but set no parameters as to what constitutes a "good" reason) the burden is upon you to define what you mean.

I don't think so. If I were using jargon or coining a term, I'd agree with you, but I purposely kept it simple and straightforward. "Good reason" is written in very plain English. I used no terminology which is ambiguous or subject to equivocation. Playing the "define the boundaries" role is to create obfuscation and a red herring, so I'll avoid semantical fallacies like this if you don't mind. Either you have a good reason for your beliefs or you don't.

Quote:

While I might be able to read between the lines (I'll presume you wish empirical evidence) of your statements, it would be most helpful to your victims, er I mean respondents, to know exactly what you want.

I'm asking for "good reason" and that's it. My assertion is that there are no good reasons to believe the Christian god exists. If I'm wrong, I'm asking respondents, which you apparently see as potential "victims," to correct me. If there are good reasons to believe in a god, I'll provide a rational response to the supernatural.

You seem to object to "supernatural," but I know no other term that is more accurate. I invite you to correct this as well. My response will be rational, even if it is to acknowledge or acquiesce to the reason. Why shouldn't it be?

Quote:

I've gotta admit, that while people like you and achilles make claims toward agnosticism, your incessant and often condescending reduction of other people's beliefs to superstitions indicate you are not only atheists, but most likely even antitheistic.

I don't think I've ever made my atheism or anti-theistic positions secret, so I don't know why it should surprise you. I'm an agnostic-atheist. I have several anti-theistic positions but I'm not one who hates those who are religious any more than I would hate the illiterate just because I have anti-illiteracy positions. Nor would I hate those afflicted with HIV/AIDS just because I'm opposed to unsafe sex.

Quote:

That's all nice and fine, but the disingenuity rings hollow after a time.

That's quite an accusation. I've certainly not desired to be perceived of as disingenuous so I'd appreciate some elucidation on this. Where, precisely, have I been disingenuous?

I've gotta admit, that while people like you and achilles make claims toward agnosticism, your incessant and often condescending reduction of other people's beliefs to superstitions indicate you are not only atheists, but most likely even antitheistic.

I see (via Skinwalker's reply) that my name has been invoked here.

Just to make sure that we're perfectly clear, I am anti-irrationalism. If you hold a belief that is irrational, then I am against that belief. If you can show how said belief isn't irrational, then there is no problem. Thus far, no one has been willing or able to demonstrate how theism is rational.

Trying to tie that to my own personal lack of belief would seem to indicate your own inability to understand the issue at hand. It would be akin to saying that because I'm skeptical of the claim that Elvis is alive, I hate people that listen to music. Perhaps your posts would have more relevance if you were able to frame your arguments in a context that had actual merit/validity.

errm... a reason that's good. I don't think so. If I were using jargon or coining a term, I'd agree with you, but I purposely kept it simple and straightforward. "Good reason" is written in very plain English. I used no terminology which is ambiguous or subject to equivocation. Playing the "define the boundaries" role is to create obfuscation and a red herring, so I'll avoid semantical fallacies like this if you don't mind. Either you have a good reason for your beliefs or you don't. I'm asking for "good reason" and that's it. My assertion is that there are no good reasons to believe the Christian god exists. If I'm wrong, I'm asking respondents, which you apparently see as potential "victims," to correct me. If there are good reasons to believe in a god, I'll provide a rational response to the supernatural. You seem to object to "supernatural," but I know no other term that is more accurate. I invite you to correct this as well. My response will be rational, even if it is to acknowledge or acquiesce to the reason. Why shouldn't it be? I don't think I've ever made my atheism or anti-theistic positions secret, so I don't know why it should surprise you. I'm an agnostic-atheist. I have several anti-theistic positions but I'm not one who hates those who are religious any more than I would hate the illiterate just because I have anti-illiteracy positions. Nor would I hate those afflicted with HIV/AIDS just because I'm opposed to unsafe sex. That's quite an accusation. I've certainly not desired to be perceived of as disingenuous so I'd appreciate some elucidation on this. Where, precisely, have I been disingenuous?

Actually, maybe you won't recall this as it happened early on, but we actually covered ground on the agnostic-athiest subject. So, I was well aware of what you consider yourself. Also, never suggested you bore ill-will toward anyone, regardless of their philosophical leanings. Not sure how you jumped to that particular conclusion. Anti-theistic doesn't inherently mean you hate anyone who believes in gods, as I'm sure you must be well aware. Just because I'm against groups like ACT UP or even the ACLU doesn't mean that I hate gays or lawyers either.

Problem with using a "simple" word like good is that it is a very subjective term. As is pretty, beautiful, smelly, erotic, or even pornographic.

About "victims", relax, it was just a jibe (sorry if I didn't include a smiley). My point in asking you to define your term should be obvious. Also, I don't object to the term supernatural at all. It was the phrase as a whole that came across as little more than a dismissively arrogant statement.
I myself have even argued w/believers that the rejection of "God" does not axiomatically prove "His" existence, only dimisses the idea or concept and not an actual entity. So, what does "good" mean? You clearly have a baseline against which you are going to refer when shooting down other people's "good" reasons.

Again, good is a common English word and your insistence to "define" it is a red herring. I'll settle for whatever colloquial definition suits the respondent. If you're not interested in debating my assertion that there are no good reasons to believe in gods, please don't bother with the thread. If you'd prefer, I can start a new thread, splitting out your posts, so that you can discuss the nuances and esoteric meanings of "good."

You need to realize that men wrote the bible, and things could have been distorted... Though as Tommycat said, the New Testament overwrites stuff from the old Testament.

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew 5:29-30

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

is this good advice or bad advice

matthew sure is fond of mutilation though

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew 18:8-9

Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

wait hang on i think i found something even more interesting:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2 thessalonians 2:11-12

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

no suckas allowed in heaven god aint got time for fools

"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite

For people claiming to be debating honestly you sure are fans of taking things out of context deliberately trying to prove a faulty argument. Heck this is what you routinely accuse me of doing (or claim I don't know what I'm talking about when I actually do)...

For people claiming to be debating honestly you sure are fans of taking things out of context deliberately trying to prove a faulty argument. Heck this is what you routinely accuse me of doing (or claim I don't know what I'm talking about when I actually do)...

i picture you covering your ears and closing your eyes and yelling no no no no no no no are you doing this irl y/n

p.s. that doesn't excuse your ignoring the old testament because it has icky things

"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite

i picture you covering your ears and closing your eyes and yelling no no no no no no no are you doing this irl y/n

There you go again...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmac7142

p.s. that doesn't excuse your ignoring the old testament because it has icky things

I'm sure you are also aware that the Old Testament is laid out in a way as though it were a collection of Historical writings such as who did what when, a lot of it didn't give out specific rules how to behave.

I'm sure you are also aware that the Old Testament is laid out in a way as though it were a collection of Historical writings such as who did what when, a lot of it didn't give out specific rules how to behave.

For people claiming to be debating honestly you sure are fans of taking things out of context deliberately trying to prove a faulty argument. Heck this is what you routinely accuse me of doing (or claim I don't know what I'm talking about when I actually do)...

You are aware that saying something does it make it true right? Oh wait.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

How about if that belief were all that somebody had left or else they might:
1) give up hope (in whatever situation)?
2) go completely errhm... postal?

For people claiming to be debating honestly you sure are fans of taking things out of context deliberately trying to prove a faulty argument. Heck this is what you routinely accuse me of doing (or claim I don't know what I'm talking about when I actually do)...

I've responded to irrational claims and implied assertions in this thread (including your demand for an explanation for the Exodus myth) at length. Obi began two threads which made an a priori assumption on the existence of his particular take on a god to which he objected to any critical inquiry or challenge. I began this thread to be that challenge. And for my willingness to provide at-length, detailed rebuttals, I get either silence from someone who claimed he could answer critics; undereducated assumptions from someone who thinks there are chariot wheels at the bottom of the red sea that "prove" exodus; and semantical red herrings about what one means about "good reason."

So forgive me if I don't believe you really have a argument or rebuttal, but I'm curious what it is, precisely, that I've taken out of context. Rather than make general, unspecified and spurious assertions, why not be specific enough to maintain intelligent discourse? Is there no room in your postings here at the Senate for an actual, rational discussion as opposed to hyperbole and ideological rhetoric?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

How about if that belief were all that somebody had left or else they might:
1) give up hope (in whatever situation)?
2) go completely errhm... postal?

Just curious.

That's a legitimate question in my opinion.

My answer would be: how is a bad argument okay? If believing Elvis is alive and well but in hiding on the International Space Station provides someone with comfort, I say good for them. As long as they aren't willing to set public policy or demanding others to accept their Elvis beliefs, they're fine believing whatever they like. I'll make them a peanut-butter and banana sandwich.

But if your suggesting that the only thing keeping someone from "going postal" is a belief in the supernatural, I'd tell you this is a fuse that's burning regardless. How many people go "postal" each year who think their god whispered instructions in their ear?